Necessary CookiesNecessary Cookies cannot be unchecked, because they are necessary for our website to function properly. They store your language, currency, shopping cart and login credentials.

Analytics CookiesWe use google.com analytics and bing.com to monitor site usage and page statistics to help us improve our website. You may turn this on or off using the tick boxes above.

Marketing CookiesMarketing Cookies do track personal data. Google and Bing monitor your page views and purchases for use in advertising and re-marketing on other websites. You may turn this on or off using the tick boxes above.

Social CookiesThese 3rd Party Cookies do track personal data. This allows Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest integration. eg. shows the Facebook 'LIKE' button. They will however be able to view what you do on our website. You may turn this on or off using the tick boxes above.

Posted:10th Mar 2003"The USA has done it's best to promote peace in the world."

That is the topic of this debate, please debate weather or not you believe this (Pro) or you do not believe this (Con).

I will like to lay down some ground rules, do not worry they go double for me!

Please keep all posts emotion freePlease do not be rudePlease state that you are either Pro or Con/Anti at the top of every post (This is just to keep people from getting confused) Please stay on topic Please refrain from starting a flame war. Please completly read the post you are responding to before you respond.

I do have some requests; please try to prove your point using links or references to a source that you may have quoted.Please try to answer any and all questions, the advantages of doing this online is that you can say your whole piece without interruption. If you feel that you have a third stance on this issue please feel free to say it, I only ask that you outline it in a simple sentence at the top of your post.

The reason why I am starting this debate is because I saw a great debate about the same subject on C-SPAN that took place in the British House of Commons. Unfortunately I say only the last 20 minutes or so. There were several diverse people there, a young woman from Kosovo, a young American man on a sort of student exchange, an older man who was an American immigrant, several British students and a handful of others.

I began thinking of how diverse HOP is and how it was the only place that I could find a group of people who I feel are capable of representing all view points of this topic. I have a feeling that current events will dominate the topic, but please keep in mind that this is not just another opportunity to slander Bush, it is an opportunity to voice your opinion and your ideas about the entire 220+ years of American history.

I have asked NYC to make the first post and I ask that nobody post untill he after he does, unless he chooses to decline, then the first post will belong to the (shock and amazement) first person.

Posted:14th Mar 2003The Invention That Changed the World: How a Small Group of Radar Pioneers Won the Second World War and Launched a Technological Revolution (Sloan Technology Series) by Robert Buderi

"American refinement of a British radar invention resulted in the disruption, and ultimately the cessation, of German V-1 rocket attacks on London."

who has a bigger military? China I think, but their technology is not as advanced as ours. I know their airforce is about 10x the size of ours. In modern combat, technology is very important. shear numbers do not win wars anymore. Still, I wouldn't want to go into a war with china.

btw, Mike, the Japanese had a very advanced biological weapons program, which they used against china towards the end of the war.

Ohh I still think that the US had something to do with it My bad dude ... I didn't mean that we didn't have anything to do with defeating Hitler.Whether Hitler had turned on Stalin or not Europe would still have fallen without us.I just wanted to point out that we got lucky in a way.

Posted:14th Mar 2003Let me remind everyone that this debate covers all past and present administrations/American people living or dead.

opps wrong plane, flying fortress what number does that have? B17 dang I hate forgetting numbers.

Lets try to keep this from being personal.

WWI, Hitler was hospitalised for exposure to poisonus gas on the battle field. Chemical weapons existed before WWII. To end the war in the Pacific two Atom Bombs were dropped on Japan, though we didnt have any more, the threat was used to get the Japanesse to retreat and then Germans were threatend with it.

Chemical warfare, though not as advanced, had been used for many many years. Sick or dead people were catipulted over castle walls, or dropped upstream from a towns water supply. This caused illness. Though they were not engenierd chemicals the bodys own toxins were enough to do some damage.

"Chemical warfare, though not as advanced, had been used for many many years. Sick or dead people were catipulted over castle walls, or dropped upstream from a towns water supply. This caused illness. Though they were not engenierd chemicals the bodys own toxins were enough to do some damage."

actually they took sick/dead people and animals and did that so the diseases they were dieing and dead of would be transmited to the other people.

SO, it was actually biological, not chemical. It wasn't the bodies own toxins, it was the toxins produced by the bacteria/fungus/etc that killed the person, and the diseases (living bacteria and viruses) that were transmited to the other armies. You aren't completely wrong, technicaly viruses actually use the bodies own system to creat toxins. But normaly it is the transmition of diseases that had the deadliest effect. Well, I am deleriousley tired, ankfdk I neeidn to go noowe.

"Chemical warfare, though not as advanced, had been used for many many years. Sick or dead people were catipulted over castle walls, or dropped upstream from a towns water supply. This caused illness. Though they were not engenierd chemicals the bodys own toxins were enough to do some damage."

actually they took sick/dead people and animals and did that so the diseases they were dieing and dead of would be transmited to the other people.

SO, it was actually biological, not chemical. It wasn't the bodies own toxins, it was the toxins produced by the bacteria/fungus/etc that killed the person, and the diseases (living bacteria and viruses) that were transmited to the other armies. You aren't completely wrong, technicaly viruses actually use the bodies own system to creat toxins. But normaly it is the transmition of diseases that had the deadliest effect. Well, I am deleriousley tired, ankfdk I neeidn to go noowe.

Twelve members of the Security Council voted in favour of the resolution. It called for the immediate cessation of "all acts of violence,provocation and destruction," and a resumption of talks between Israel and the Palestinians. It involved the establishment of a "monitoring mechanism" to aid in implementing the Mitchell report and to "help create a better situation in the occupied Palestinian territories".

The US used it's veto.

Who is more wrong the US using it's veto to try and prevent something that begin to bring peace to a tragic saga in the middle east. Or France, Germany and Russia using they're veto now?

Posted:15th Mar 2003Ray cooooie. again The germans were never threated with the A-bomb, mostly, this was because they had unconditionaly surrended on may 7th 1945.3 months before the bombs were dropped on japan on the 6th and 9th of august 1945.(random aside: I used to design inspection robots to go into the core of nuclear reactors, that was before I got morals)

but your right about mustard gas in WW1 and early chemical warfare:"Two of the earliest reported uses (of chemical warfare) occurred in the 6th century BC, with the Assyrians poisoning enemy wells with rye ergot, and Solon’s use of the purgative herb hellebore during the siege of Krissa" (nbc medical)

humans have always been brilliant at developing ever more ingenous and more nasty ways to inflict pain and suffering upon their fellow man.

All utterly off topic, cos we was all working on the same side in WW2.

USA current contributions to world peace include holding innocent (until proven guilty) prisoners in guantanamo bay without charge and without trial. Sort it out lads. Have a trial or let them go.

http://resistance.chiffonrouge.org/article.php3?id_article=94br>violence begets violence. If we want to world to belive we are good and moral, we need to start acting like it, and not diregard our own standards whenever it is convienent for us. I do not belive it is neccisary to torture anybody for any reason. Just shoot them in the head, or lock them up for life. But don't degrade ourselves by stooping to the moral standards of our enemies.

Posted:16th Mar 2003Lets put it this way, if anyone touches my French Toast they are gonna face on mean and hungry guy!! Maple syrup is one thing but dont mess with my French toas!! (What resturaunt changed those names, hell I'll be the first inline to boycott those places for their stupidity!)

First off, those are not POWs.

A Prisoner of War is a soldier, more specifically it is an enimy soldier. Now any Taliban or Al-Quida member that is taken into captivity are not POWs. Why? In oder to be a soldier, you must first have a country, secondly you must be uniformed. The Taliban and Al-Quida are not uniformed nor do they have a country. They are international terrorists and are not reconised as anything but thugs. Those men, are fed, clothed, and shelterd. That in itself is alot better than how they treated 3000 Muslims, Christians, Jews, Budists all for some holy war against the American machine of democracy.

Violence, bah they brought it on them selves.

The following is an email that I was sent, I think it speaks for itself.

You probably missed it in the rush of news last week, but there was actually a report that someone in Pakistan had published in a newspaper an offer of a reward to anyone who killed an American, any American. So an Australian dentist wrote the following to let everyone know what an American is, so they would know when they found one:

An American is English, or French, or Italian, Irish, German, Spanish, Polish, Russian or Greek. An American may also be Canadian, Mexican, African, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Australian, Iranian, Asian, or Arab, or Pakistani, or Afghan. An American may also be a Cherokee, Osage, Blackfoot, Navaho, Apache, Seminole or one of the many other tribes known as native Americans. An American is Christian, or he could be Jewish, or Buddhist, or Muslim. In fact, there are more Muslims in America than in Afghanistan. The only difference is that in America they are free to worship as each of them chooses. An American is also free to believe in no religion. For that he will answer only to God, not to the government, or to armed thugs claiming to speak for the government and for God. An American is from the most prosperous land in the> history of the world. The root of that prosperity can be found in the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes the God given right of each person the pursuit of happiness. An American is generous. Americans have helped out just about every other nation in the world in their time of need. When Afghanistan was overrun by the Soviet army 20 years ago, Americans came with arms and supplies to enable the people to win back their country. As of the morning of September 11, Americans had given more than any other nation to the poor in Afghanistan. Americans welcome the best, the best products, the best books, the best music, the best food, the best athletes. But they also welcome the least. The national symbol of America, The Statue of Liberty, welcomes your tired and your poor, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores, the homeless, tempest tossed. These in fact are the people who built America. Some of them were working in the Twin Towers the morning of September 11, 2002 earning a better life for their families. I've been told that the World Trade Center victims were from at least 30 other countries, cultures, and first languages, including those that aided and abetted the terrorists. So you can try to kill an American if you must. Hitler did. So did General Tojo, and Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung, and every bloodthirsty tyrant in the history of the world. But, in doing so you would just be killing yourself. Because Americans are not a particular people from a particular place. They are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, is an American.

So, who is the violence really against? It is against you and me, do you honestly think that these fanatical terrorists will stop at America? If they managed to rid the world of America do you honestly think that you and your western influenced country wouldnt be targeted? I mean East Timor has already been attacked. America wasnt even the target! It was the Australian tourists that were targeted.

Now the US is putting its foot down, true it is almost 13 years late, but it is doing it now. Iraq invaded a country, that country called on the UN to help it. The UN then kicked Iraq out and placed sanctions and laws on Iraq. The threat was, if you violate this you will get attacked. Then they did nothing when things were violated. It is time for Sadam to get out and force the Iraqi government to abide by what the UN says.

Sometimes peace is obtained by war. Sometimes it is made without war.

What about the 100,000 Kurds and Iraqis that died when Sadam decided to gas the Nothern part of his country? Where were the peace attempts then? Where were the thousands of people with picket signs?

"Not in my name!" That is the slogan of "peace", why dont you tell that to the Kurds? Why dont you show up and tell them that you want them to die because you dont want to get rid of Sadam.

Do you honestly think that the UN can get rid of Sadam without war?

Sadam and I dont think alike but if I were him, no way in hades could you pull me out of one of my many cushy palaces without a fight. So by saying no to this war you are saying yes to him, telling him that it is okay to gas as many Kurds and murder anyone who disagrees with him.

Time has run out for a diplomatic soloution to Iraq, it is time for action.

Posted:18th Mar 2003The "Taliban" was the ruling government of afganistan. (So what if they took over a few years ago? They were still, technicaly, the ruling government.) Their soldiers were not dressed in "standard uniforms". So what? Do you know why they weren't? Their government couldn't afford to put a nice shiny uniform on each of them, nor give them all shiny new boots, and rations, and airplanes, or nifty communications gear so they could all take orders from a single command center. That does not make them less of a soldier. They were willing to fight dispite the USA's airpower that was sent in (doesn't that show the courage of a soldier as well?). And don't be fooled by the fact that we had men on the ground. Those men were there to direct airplane bombs, not shoot it out. We let the anti-taliban soldiers do that for us. That's what the people on our side were right? soldiers? So how could the people on our side be called soldiers and the people on the other side be called terrorists. Nobody there had a standard uniform, so how can that be the determining factor? They carried on in OPEN combat, not sneaking around in the shadows, blowing up school children. Those are the actions of soldiers. Waht about the non-taliban fighters, the Al Aqaeda? The USA has people from foriegn countries in OUR military. Does that make those people not soldiers? Basicaly this is a war. In a war there are POW's. Calling these captured prisoners "terrorists" is just a way of working around the laws for pow's. It doesn't matter though. This is all a moot point.

It doesn't matter if those guys are technicaly pow's or terrorists or French (bad joke ). They are still human, and as such deserve HUMAN rights. It doesn't matter who they are. Do we allow murderers in america to be tortured in prison? What about rapists? You know, as gratifying as that might be, and as satisfying, it is not what this country stands for. If you don't agree with that, move to Turkey where torture is legal. Torturing these people is NOT the only source of info we have. Sure, it might help a little, but we have other methods of gaining info. Most of those guys will never talk anyways, they would sooner die (an exit which we take care to not allow them). And seeing this happen will only strengthen the resolve of our enemies. Just like when they took out our twin towers (911), they probably thought we would be scared, and run away, and hide. did we? hell no. We kicked their butts, and then looked for some more butts to kick.

This "John Lihnd" (sp?) character. Everybody is so pissed because he was fighting americans. Bullshit. He was fighting with the taliban against other afganies. Just because the USA stepped in a dropped a few bombs, doesn't all of a sudden translate to Johhny boy shooting at americans. I think he should be considered a POW along with every other captured Taliban soldier. (it's his own fault anyways for claiming american after he got captured. What was he thinking? Did he think he would get special treatment? he got special treatment alright....) If we can have citizens from other countries join OUR military and fight in it, then why can't other militaries accept americans? Johnny boy was with the Taliban way befor the USA got there. What, you think he hopped on a plane AFTER the USA stepped in? You expect him to suddenly abandon his friends and fellow soldiers just because his country starts to help the other side by droping a few bombs?

Sure, there are times when I feel inside like it would be alright to smack them around a little, try and get some info out of them to save some american live. But that is the Animal nature inside, not the human. Animals derive pleasure at the sensation level, never considering the long term consequences. Humans are perceptual, they think of the consequences to their actions.

What are the consequences to us torturing (or sending off to other countries with the knowledge of eminent torture) these people? Violence begets violence...yea yea yea, but more importantly.

If we want the world to see us as fair, and uncorrupted, and unselfish, and unhyppocritical...then we need to start practicing what we preach. We tell Turkey for years "stop torturing your prisoners" but when we need some torturing done, we don't hesitate to take advantage of their system, and send the bad boys over there to get "info extracted". Human rights violations are regulary ignored by the USA, If they are commited in countries who's governments are friendly with us. Now, let a country who is against us commite that same infraction....all hell breaks loose. "how dare they do that, all human's have rights!" we say. What about those violations we convienently ignore?

:steps down off of soap box:

Lest my loyalties be misinterperted...I belive in peace and love and human rights. For all humans. I belive this country is one of the closest to actually having equality among it's own citizens. But we do have problems. We have the power to lead (or drive) this world into prosperity (or destruction). With such a great power comes great responsibility. If the corruption of our leaders allows only greed to dominate the course of our future, surely only destruction can follow.

Posted:18th Mar 2003I just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in.. Let me start by stating that I have some strong beliefs and I do not claim that they are right for anyone other then myself.. That being said.. I'm definately Con the US being anything. At first I thought it was Bush's ignorance, but then I relaized that is so much more here then what's being presented. On one hand, you have those that want to go to war to prove to Iran and N. Korea that this will happen to you if you mess with us.. They hope that it will stave off the nuclear threat of those nations while dealing with what? Oil.. Hmm.. pretty sound argument for a capitalist.. But what are really doing but making things worse.. If someone said that you were #3 on the hit list, and you see what we did to 1. Afganistan and what we are about to do to 2. Iraq.. Then would you not want to get nuclear weapons as fast as possible? I know I would want to hit first, if I saw a hit coming for me.. So can you really blame them.. I'm not saying that them having the nukes is right, I'm just saying that the method of handling it is all wrong..Now this problem draws attention to the -real- problem.. America.. See we have this notion of ourselves as the pinnacle of the world.. I mean really what doesn the US (and some of it's allies) really do but go out and muscle their opinion and belief on to other people.. Since when to we have authority to dictate what is right for the -world-?? Bush has declared that we will pursue the evil -ANYWHERE-.. That's pretty ballsy.. But then again we are dealing with an American ego that we (western culture) have evolved beyond these people, or maybe have a truer sense of justice? What nonsense.. WE live in a democracy.. There fore we live by the principle that 'might makes right..' If you don't believe me, then look at the how a democracy works.. What is -right- is what the -majority- feels.. But is that right? We all know that the majority is not right.. The majority is nothing more then that, the majority.. The majority of the world believed the earth was flat.. Does that mean they were right?!? No... It just goes to show how we delude ourselves in this 'might makes right' mentality.. So what are we left with? well we have a policy that is dictated by the majority, by those who are in ingorance of all the facts.. We elected (and a majority still support) a president, who has time and again proven how screwed up things are.. Let's take our egos down a notch.. We're not perfect.. WE do not need to make an enemy of NATO or get booted from the UN just because our pride was hurt, we feel threatened, and we want to bully others back in line.. Accept that we are flawed just like everyone else and move on.. But no, instead we continue for this struggle for world dominace.. You may ask," well what do you mean by world dominance? we are fighting tyranny.." But are we.. Is not the U.S, it's allies Britain, western Europe, Russia (in the broad sense not in referring to the iraq situation) Australia all arguing pretty much the same global policy.. aren't our actions on foreign policy based in Large part on the interests of our allies and ourselves, then what is acutally right... Here we see the large scale politics.. Where the line is no longer what country do you stand behind but what faction... A simple labeling of 'Us' on our allies, and 'them' on eastern europe, middle east, africa, etc.. or in other words all that do not agree in 'our' greatness... Why instead of finding a resolution between option A and antithesis of option A, be one or the other only and not formed on a middleground somwhere between the two...

Sorry if you feel I sidetracked.. And I'm sorry for making such a long rant.. But I only giver my opinion when asked..

"The trick is to combine the endless curiosity of your waking life, with the infinite possibilities of your dreams... Because if you can do that, then you can do anything.. " - Guy Forsythe "A Waking Life"

More useless information courtesy of Rev...Confusing the masses, one post at a time..."Obviously, you're not a golfer.."- The Dude "Buy the ticket... Take the ride..." -Raoul Duke "FEMA has never done catastrophe planning..."-Michael Brown

I see a major problem it the attitude of many americans. They have this proud mindset of "it's the american way" and this seems to justify (in their mind) us having gas guzling vehicles, wastefull pollution of our environment, and we're the biggest kids on the block, and we are in control, so what we do must obviousely be correct. This is the land of the free, so if we want something do, it must obviousely be the best thing. Why? because we are well informed and have all the information we need to make these important descisions (could you detect the note of sarcasm seeping through?)

It is actually embarasing to me how many of my friends do not truely care about other countries or people, as long as they are happily driving their big trucks and eating pizza.

(no offence against pizza)

Most of them see he world through the eyes of the television they watch each night. They can't be bothered to actually do independant research. They are to busy raising their children, and working their butts off 10 hours a day then come home and take care of their children, fix their machines, and everything else. We get paid barely enough to support ourselves and our families. that too is the "american way" We work hard for small wages. And we like to enjoy what we do get.

The main problem is that the evening news lays everything out in simplistic (right/wrong) terms, and the real world is far from that. We have a population who is in control of our own destiny, but we are making decisions based on, at best, half the information. In order to make the correct choices the population of the USA must be well educated, but that will never happen as long as "the evening news" continues to be the sole source of information for the majority of the people in the USA.

Posted:18th Mar 2003Why didn't the USA and Britain just give Montana to the jewish people. It's unpoppulated, twice the size of israel, and (bonus), there aren't 100 million arabs in montana who want to kill them. It's like somebody got a bright idea "hey guys! lets just put all the jews next to their ansestral enemies, and everything will be great!" Oh and look! it says here in this little book (bible) that if we do this, all hell will break loose soon afterwards and a third of the people in the world will die! Won't that be cool? no more waiting around to see when it will happen, we'll just help it along." just like the serb/bosnia thing right? who comes up with these brilliant ideas?

Posted:19th Mar 2003quote: So, who is the violence really against? It is against you and me, do you honestly think that these fanatical terrorists will stop at America? If they managed to rid the world of America do you honestly think that you and your western influenced country wouldnt be targeted? I mean East Timor has already been attacked. America wasnt even the target! It was the Australian tourists that were targeted.

Now the US is putting its foot down, true it is almost 13 years late, but it is doing it now. Iraq invaded a country, that country called on the UN to help it. The UN then kicked Iraq out and placed sanctions and laws on Iraq. The threat was, if you violate this you will get attacked. Then they did nothing when things were violated. It is time for Sadam to get out and force the Iraqi government to abide by what the UN says. Ray, as per your rules can you please provide a link or somthing that makes this connection between the war on terror and the Iraq issue.

I could be wrong. No, but things to the wonders of historical records, neither is Israel.. It was just land approrpiated back in the day, but I'm not a history major so I don't remember which war.. it's been a long time since I've had a history course.. The point is this: Israel and Palestine are not the holy lands as per any real history, but rather through ritual.. They did a special on it for a while on the history and discovery channels.. Raising the question that if they know that the sites are not the actual sites, why still worship them? Symbolism.. The same reason the Jesus 'Journey of the cross' tour through jerusalem is more then 4 times longer then his journey and would have gone through the CENTER of a roman barrack. but again symbolism.. So when the war (yes sorry for the vague reference, but I'm sure anyone interested can look it up) mentioned above was over, and people were -given- land b/c their people had been persecuted so much... There too in-lies part of the problem.. You gave people someone elses land (that is only symbolic of thier holy land anyway) that was appropriated at the end of a war... hmmm... yeah, as far as I'm concerned they should be just as happy in Montana as Jerusalem... Hell send trhem to Canada, they needed population boost anyway..

More useless information courtesy of Rev...Confusing the masses, one post at a time..."Obviously, you're not a golfer.."- The Dude "Buy the ticket... Take the ride..." -Raoul Duke "FEMA has never done catastrophe planning..."-Michael Brown

Posted:19th Mar 2003I'm sorry my last post was a bit rude.. I forget sometimes about America's policy of dictating where and how people live.. So, moving anyone from Israel would be a bad idea, I suppose.. We moved them there for a reason, didn't we? oh yeah, to have another country like england to back any decision we make.. It's that whole one step closer to world dominance.. hehehe

More useless information courtesy of Rev...Confusing the masses, one post at a time..."Obviously, you're not a golfer.."- The Dude "Buy the ticket... Take the ride..." -Raoul Duke "FEMA has never done catastrophe planning..."-Michael Brown

Posted:19th Mar 2003actually there are millions of square kilometers of unused government land in montana, idaho, alaska, etc. Ok, well maybe alaska is to cold, but the point is, why not end this blood shed. It would realy be a simple matter, all you gotta do is kick a few cows off the land, and spend a couple years lettinghtem build houses and infrastructure, and give it to the jews. Hell, sell it for all are, ain't like they don't have money. We could even solve a large part of our national debt. They could even retain the same status as native americans, with their own laws and government, even retaining semi-autonomouse laws. I'm sure most laws in Isreal aren't to differnt than ours anyways. It would be almost like the louisiana purchase. I'm sure there would have to be trade barriers and such so their economy doesn't mess with ours to much, but it could be worked out.

Posted:24th Mar 2003I was refering to a show called the Savage Nation, though I view that man to be a loudmouth schnook I see some truth in what he said. Personally I dont know where he got his information but I am sure that you can find it somewhere on either of these two sites.